Lawsuit From John Denver's Family
Buzz Burrowes
The way I figure it... the Wright brothers are just as liable as
Aircraft Spruce and Specialty Co. I'm surprised their descendants aren't
named defendants as well.
Robert Day
they are LOW ON FUEL??? Is he trying to say that the valve manufacturer is
liable for WHERE THE BUILDER PUTS IT??? And that whoever sells the valve is
RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS USE??? And even if the plane DOES get into an unusual
attitude, REGARDLESS OF CAUSE, it's the PILOT"S responsibility to FLY THE
FUCKING AIRPLANE. Jesus H. Christ, what is this legal system coming to? John
DECLINED FUEL, that's a friggin' FACT. This piece of shit attorney is only
trying to get some settlement money, the damn jerk. (Please note, I don't
feel this way about all attorneys) If it was legal to do so, I'd kick the
crap out of him. This really pisses me off. Fuck.
Robert Day
Question: Is it possible/feasible for the defendants to countersue for legal
costs? This case is so ridiculous, it would seem an easy countersuit to win.
But is it allowed? Is there any way to get the plaintiff to pay all legal
fees incurred? Please tell me it is possible. Please.
Rich Ahrens
> and that pilots of experimental planes should not be singled out.
I can't believe an EAA official actually said that. Wanna bet the
reporter couldn't figure out the difference between biennial and
biannual?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|r...@visi.com |-----------------------------------------------|
|"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vet Trek
newest bit of news is embarrassing.
Besides being lurker here, I am an EAA member, go to the monthly chapter
meetings, am a frequent passenger in a Long EZ, am a hopeful future pilot with
one lesson so far!
Please don't shoot the messenger here, personally I agree with the NTSB report
and would even go further as to not place any blame on anyone other than John.
So, here goes the article about the lawsuit from the Denver Post today:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John Denver Crash Report Called Flawed
By Peggy Lowe
Denver Post Staff Writer
Jan. 27 - An attorney for John Denver's family on Tuesday
criticized the final federal report on the plane crash that killed
the pop singer and said he will ask the government
to reconsider its conclusion.
In a report issued Tuesday, the National Transportation Safety Board
said the crash can be blamed on the plane's design as well as pilot
error. Denver, the report said, took off with too little
fuel in one tank, had trouble switching to a backup fuel tank and
then inadvertently put the plane into a roll.
But Bill Wimsatt, a Los Angeles lawyer who represents Denver's
mother and the singer's three children, said the NTSB report is
flawed. The report missed two vital issues, Wimsatt said.
First, Denver could not have added fuel to the airplane because of
federal weight limitations, and to fly with any more fuel would have
been illegal, Wimsatt said.
"Frankly it's such a basic mistake (by the NTSB), I don't see how
they could have missed it, but they did. Big time.''
Second, Wimsatt said the NTSB's report incorrectly theorized that
Denver caused the plane to roll while trying to reach the fuel
selector valve. Instead, he said, Denver probably lost control of the
plane because it became unbalanced after losing power.
"Their idea that he (rolled the plane by mistake) is not bad, but
it's not a necessary ingredient to explain the accident,'' Wimsatt
said.
"The more likely explanation is that the loss of thrust from the
propeller created a change in balance that contributed to the loss of
control of the airplane.'' Denver, the 53-year-old parttime Aspen
resident, was killed when his small, experimental plane plunged into
the ocean off Pacific Grove, Calif., on Oct. 12, 1997.
Witnesses said they heard a sputter, and federal investigators
theorize that Denver ran out of fuel in the left tank and had trouble
switching to his right tank.
The plans for Denver's homemade Long E-Z say the fuel selector
handle, which switches the fuel flow between the left and right
tanks, should be located between the pilot's legs. But the plane's
builder, Texas aircraft maker Adrian Davis Jr., told investigators he
put it behind the pilot's left shoulder because he did not want fuel
in the cockpit.
The day of the crash, Denver and a maintenance technician talked
about the handle's inaccessibility.
"They tried a pair of Vise Grip pliers on the handle to extend the
reach of the handle, but this did not work,'' said one investigative
report.
Under those circumstances, the pilot would have had to remove his
shoulder harness, turn around and switch the handle. While doing so,
Denver's right foot pressed against the right rudder, the report
said, causing the aircraft to roll.
The plane had no flight data or voice recorder, so investigators had
to piece together their account of the plane's final minutes. "That's
just a theory,'' Wimsatt said. "You don't need to theorize in that
way to explain the accident.''
But Wimsatt said he was glad the NTSB report highlighted the fuel
valve. The NTSB said contributing factors included the builder's
decision to relocate the fuel tank selector handle and an absence of
markings on the handle and fuel gauges, as well as Denver's lack of
training in his new plane. Denver's survivors have filed a lawsuit in
a California court against the valve manufacturer, Imperial Valve
Co., and its supplier, Aircraft Spruce and Specialty Co.
The suit seeks undetermined monetary damages, he said. Wimsatt
represents Denver's mother, Erma Deutschendorf of Aurora, two adult
children from his first marriage, Zachary and AnnaKate, and his
daughter by his second wife, Jesse Belle.
Experimental and amateur-built aircraft like the Long E-Z are not
subject to all Federal Aviation Administration rules. The safety
board recommended that the FAA, the Experimental
Aircraft Association and insurers cooperate to "strongly encourage''
pilots of new experimental planes to undergo formal
training, not now required.
But an EAA official said training is already required twice a year
and that pilots of experimental planes should not be singled out.
"I don't see how they can isolate that need to EAA pilots,'' said
Gayle Hess, president of a San Diego EAA chapter in San Diego.
The Associated Press and The Washington Post contributed to this
report.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So there you have it.
Val
I heard a singer whose songs were pure
About humans, our loves and our greeds
And this man when he sang even angry words
Had a soul that was deeply at peace
- Ellen Stapenhorst
Kurt
Whatever
Kurt
Buzz Burrowes <buzz_b...@playstation.sony.com> wrote in article
<36AFCAE4...@playstation.sony.com>...
PPlous
just a pilot, not a lawyer, I will try to rebut Mr. Wimsatt's arguments on
common sense.
1.I am unaware of any Federal weight restriction to the Long-EZ. Full fuel may
have put it out of CG, but since JD was solo, I doubt it.
2. Try this: sit in your favorite chair, then take your right hand and reach
six inches behind your left ear, twisting your body slightly as you go (anyone
born before 1950 can simulate this part). Now, without moving, look at your
feet. Your right foot is extended; if this were a rudder pedal you would have
picked up the left wingtip. I tried this on my very own brother when he asked
about this accident. His experience in airplanes consists of the pax
compartment of an airliner. He had no preconceived notions on how this would
turn out. He is also FAR more coordinated than I. As for the roll not
explaining the accident, try stomping on a rudder at 500 AGL. (All persons are
encouraged to simulate this part!!)
3. The Long-EZ is a centerline thrust aircraft. I invite a Long-EZ pilot to
inform us on the consequences of abrupt loss of thrust in that aircraft, since
I am decidedly not an expert.
4. The prudent pilot would not take off when he knew he could not change fuel
tanks. Another hour searching for a solution may have averted this accident.
5. Training in a new aircraft is essential to safe operation. If you don't
train and get away with it, you were LUCKY, not good.
6. I assume (and you know what happens then!) that the fuel tank selector valve
worked as advertised, it was just placed in an inappropriate spot. (Yes,
officer, the turn signal works fine. I just had it reinstalled in the trunk)
My 2 cents. My wife will get me for this; she's a bg JD fan........
Note: nobody ever rode one in because he thought what he was doing was stupid.
Every dead pilot used every bit of his judgement, skill, and cunning to keep
from dying. When someone rides it in, he did so trying to save his life. There
are always lesons learned.
P2
Reinerh
the thunder mustang will be next,
followed by the lancair columbia lawsuit.
when will it stop??
reiner
John Ammeter
Just hope no one crashes after one of your engines gives up the ghost.
It won't matter if it ran out of gas or the pilot 'forgot' to put oil
in it; it'll still be your ass in court paying a lawyer to explain why
your engine can't run without gas or oil.
John Ammeter
Seattle WA
USA
1975 JH-5
RV-6 (sold 4/98)
Reinerh
>It won't matter if it ran out of gas or the pilot 'forgot' to put oil
>in it; it'll still be your ass in court paying a lawyer to explain why
>your engine can't run without gas or oil.
>
>
you are right this has happened to the lycoming factory numerous times.
so far this has not happened to us.
but since its a car engine i can hearalready paul lamars arguments.
this makes me more and more wanting to go back to the old country.
reiner
Reinerh
>trying to get some settlement money, the damn jerk.
remember the jessica deal.
there it was money as well.
the attorney has nothing to loose.
just send a few letters back and forth and collect a few cool millions.
reiner
Tim Edward
ok gang, sing along....... America, America the land of.....
Hey its your legal system, what can I say.....
Actually it's not much different than ours......
Please note that it takes two to tango, and somebody had to hire the guy ...
read Deutchendorf family....
Maybe, and its just a guess, the will wasn't as beneficial as was expected
And finally, no matter what you do you aren't going to bring him back, so I
can't see the point of making the life of so many others (clearly not
responsible) miserable for your own loss.
Oh and while we are here, PPLOUS why don't you tell us how you really feel
<G>.
brau...@pcocd2.intel.com
vet...@aol.com (Vet Trek) wrote:
> But Bill Wimsatt, a Los Angeles lawyer who represents Denver's
> mother and the singer's three children, said the NTSB report is
> flawed. The report missed two vital issues, Wimsatt said.
>
> First, Denver could not have added fuel to the airplane because of
> federal weight limitations, and to fly with any more fuel would have
> been illegal, Wimsatt said.
A Long-EZE cannot fly with one person and full fuel!?!?!? Is this due to
weight and balance concerns? Or is the lawyer speading FUD (fear,
uncertainty and doubt)?
> "Frankly it's such a basic mistake (by the NTSB), I don't see how
> they could have missed it, but they did. Big time.''
Incredible that they could have missed that. Just incredible. How
could basic facts that are apparent to any idiot slip by the experts?
Perhaps we need facts that aren't apparent to idiots.
> Second, Wimsatt said the NTSB's report incorrectly theorized that
> Denver caused the plane to roll while trying to reach the fuel
> selector valve. Instead, he said, Denver probably lost control of the
> plane because it became unbalanced after losing power.
"Unbalanced after losing power"? I wasn't aware that the engine had a
different weight while running versus non-running. In a tractor airplane you
could argue that the prop-wash changes the aerodynamics slightly, but that
isn't possible in a Long-Eze.
Brian
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Bryan Martin
----------
In article <78olnp$4fv$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Robert Day"
<robertd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
The LAWYER should be paying all legal costs in cases like this, not the
plaintif. If these silly-assed nusiance lawsuits start costing them actual
cash money they might reconsider filing the suits in the first place.
brian whatcott
>
>
> Jan. 27 - An attorney for John Denver's family on Tuesday
>... Denver could not have added fuel to the airplane because of
>federal weight limitations, and to fly with any more fuel would have
>been illegal, Wimsatt said.
>
>"Frankly it's such a basic mistake (by the NTSB), I don't see how
>they could have missed it, but they did. Big time.''
>
>Second, Wimsatt said the NTSB's report incorrectly theorized that
>Denver caused the plane to roll while trying to reach the fuel
>selector valve. Instead, he said, Denver probably lost control of the
>plane because it became unbalanced after losing power.
>
>"Their idea that he (rolled the plane by mistake) is not bad, but
>it's not a necessary ingredient to explain the accident,'' Wimsatt
>said.
It's OBVIOUS the NTSB got it wrong and Wimsnott got it right.
He's a lawyer. They are engineers and pilots. When will they ever
learn to do the job right? He's probably even flown a plane and
all that stuff. Besides, he asked an expert.
And he charged an INCREDIBLE lot of aviation books to expenses,
so how can he be wrong?
Besides, Whipsnich will make an AWFUL lot of money when
he wins.
Gimme a break!
Brian Whatcott Altus OK
brian whatcott
Day,robertd...@earthlink.net says...
>
>... Jesus H. Christ, what is this legal system coming to? John
>DECLINED FUEL, that's a friggin' FACT. This piece of shit attorney is only
>trying to get some settlement money, the damn jerk. (Please note, I don't
Why not, pray?
brian whatcott
Day,robertd...@earthlink.net says...
>
>Hello to all lawyers out there-
>Question: Is it possible/feasible for the defendants to countersue for legal
>costs? This case is so ridiculous, it would seem an easy countersuit to win.
>But is it allowed? Is there any way to get the plaintiff to pay all legal
>fees incurred? Please tell me it is possible. Please.
>
fair representative from that respected body of gents who will shaft him on the
drop of a bill ( given it has enough spots on it.)
So I will answer his question for him:
You can MOST CERTAINLY sue to recover your costs consequent on
someones actions - all it takes is enough monetary incentive to an ambulance
chaser. Would anyone have doubted this?
Oh yes: you can actually sue anybody for anything.
There and I didn't even charge for that 4 minutes of my valuable time.
Brian Whatcott Altus OK
Ralph L. Coffman
Am I missing something ??? I read that John had also lossed his medical and was
there froe NOT
Legal to fly . If he chose to fly when not Leagly able to do so how can anybody
sue ??????
Ralph
Charles K. Scott
vet...@aol.com (Vet Trek) writes:
> Jan. 27 - An attorney for John Denver's family on Tuesday
> criticized the final federal report on the plane crash that killed
> the pop singer and said he will ask the government
> to reconsider its conclusion.
> "The more likely explanation is that the loss of thrust from the
> propeller created a change in balance that contributed to the loss of
> control of the airplane.''
Sigh, this is blatently untrue and indicates how little the attorney
understands flight dynamics, or maybe he just hopes the court doesn't
understand. I'm aware of no airplane that gets unstable when level in
cruise and the throttle is cut to idle. The EZ series of aircraft are
notable for their stability in flight. Sheesh, how does the guy think
we land them if they go out of control when the throttle is cut back?
My prediction; this will be tossed out if the attorney actually brings
it to court. But it will cost a lot in court costs. I'm guessing that
the attorney would rather settle out of court.
In article <36b02...@news.oanet.com>
"Tim Edward" <ted...@datanet.ab.ca> writes:
> Please note that it takes two to tango, and somebody had to hire the guy ...
> read Deutchendorf family....
Actually I don't think this is the case. I believe the attorneys take
the case for a percentage of the settlement. "I don't get paid until
you do" is what I keep hearing personal injury lawyers advertise. Mrs.
Deutchendorf should know better, Denver was an EAA member, he would not
have wanted this to happen.
Corky Scott
Scott Gettings
As addressed in the numerous posts to this and previous threads,
*anybody* can sue anybody else for almost anything. They can
even sue you when they were 99.99% at fault (e.g. "joint &
several liability")!
Remember that a plaintiff's attorney gets a jury of people that
don't know anything about planes, engines, piloting, etc. who are
easily swayed to vote against the big, bad aircraft/engine
mfg./designer or anyone else who has a deep pocket! Their only
risk is their own expenses of the case. Their potential benefit
can be millions.
Unlike the rest of the world, since our laws were created by
attorneys and maintained by them (we vote them into office
regularly), many of these rules obviously serve lawyers first.
Most other countries have a simple "loser pays" provision where
if you sue someone and lose, you pay *their* expenses too. This
is a big disincentive to undertake frivolous suits.
Unfortunately we don't have that level of a playing field in the
states. The costs of frivolous suits has devastated aviation,
medicine, manufacturing and many other industries. The consumer
always pays.
The lawyers will argue that "we are protecting those who can't
afford to pay for it otherwise". B.S. They should take the
case for free if someone can't afford them and they have been
truly wronged. Do some good for a change. Besides, good cases
would be won anyway so their risk of taking it would be
negligible.
With little or no downside to our current system, a plaintiff
atty. can often get a settlement from a defendant just because
the cost of going to trial and a potential loss for the defendant
may be less than the settlement. Money for nothing!
Not only do you see the costs of this insanity in airplanes, but
in everything else from stepladders to home insurance to
aspirin.
If everyone would get together and demand of their legislators
that their state enacts "loser pays" legislation *everyone*
(except attorneys) would benefit. Lower costs for everything.
Still have your rights to sue if you have good case. Attorneys
might have to work in a productive manner instead of destroying
companies, lives, and industries. Call or write your
legislators and make a difference! This is such an
across-the-board issue that if enough people were educated and
vocal we could change it.
Scott Gettings
Richard C
It is clear from his erroneous citations that the lawyer for the
plaintiff hasn't done his homework. Unfortunately, he really doesn't
have to do his homework -- at least not yet. He is hoping for a
settlement.
I doubt that the defendants (Aircraft Spruce Inc. and Imperial Valve
Co.) will offer any substantial early settlement. Unfortunately, this
means that they will surely spend tens of thousands of dollars
defending a case that I suspect has no merit. Who pays in the end?
We all do.
Richard C
Mike English
BUT....
Did I miss the part of the story where John Denver was forced into this
aircraft? I must have because that is the only way someone could START to
be accountable.
Along those same lines.....
I don't remember seeing cigarette manufacturers sitting on people's chests
and forcing them to smoke...
I also have never seen a handgun manufacturer manipulating someone's mind to
force them to buy a handgun on the street and commit murder...
It would be a good idea to force lawyers to be paid a maximum wage for any
case, but such a law would always be fantasy since the majority of people
who can take the luxury of time off from real productive work to be a
politician is lawyers! We need to elect judges with gonads of steel to look
these cases in the eye and give a resounding "NO".
Hmmmm, I think I'll sue the states for ALLOWING the sale of these items
after they knew it was bad for health. That lawsuit would make just as much
sense.
ullr
How much fuel and oil did the plane dump in the ocean? How many lives were
needlessly put at risk when Mr Dnver decided to fly his plane in an unsafe
condition without a valid medical? Looks to me the wrong person is getting
sued.
Bryan Martin wrote in message ...
Richard Lamb
They have air conditioning and Television (preferably CABLE!)
They have WWW wrestling, and Jerry Springer - to keep them
intelectually occupied.
But those "voters" don't have a clue that anything is wrong.
Besides, I think most of them look at a law suit as some kind
of lottery. Some day it will be his/her turn and they can "win"
a million dollars - without even buying a ticket.
Well, we can wish, at least.
Richard Lamb
Nigel Field wrote:
>
> Not untill the voters ban all lawyers from politics and return your
> nation to a JUST society verses a LEGAL society.
>
> Nigel Field
Richard Lamb
Maybe, someday, it will be HIS turn to "win"...
Richard Lamb
>
> ----------
> In article <78olnp$4fv$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Robert Day"
> <robertd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Question: Is it possible/feasible for the defendants to countersue for
> legal
> >costs? This case is so ridiculous, it would seem an easy countersuit to
> win.
> >But is it allowed? Is there any way to get the plaintiff to pay all legal
> >fees incurred? Please tell me it is possible. Please.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> plaintif. If these silly-assed nusiance lawsuits start costing them actual
> cash money they might reconsider filing the suits in the first place.
These "silly-assed" nusiance lawsuits are making a BUNDLE for the
lawyers. Just WHY on EARTH do you think they'd quit?
Bob Romanko
where the money is. Otherwise, the builder would
be named as well. Not knowing the individual's
financial situation, I'd have to assume his pockets
aren't as deep as those of Aircraft Spruce.
Bob Romanko
Lead Computer Center Engineer
University of Virginia
Department of Human Resources
Charlottesville, Virginia USA
Please remove nospam from email address.
I know it's a hassle, but it sure cuts
down on the spam! Thanks.
Ken & Laura Chaddock
Isn't this the kind of shit that almost killed light general aviation
15 - 20 years ago ? Why *DID* Cessena et al stop making light aircraft ?
...Ken
Kurt
<8A2F1531A969E492.496063FC...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
> Did I miss the part of the story where John Denver was forced into this
> aircraft? I must have because that is the only way someone could START
to
> be accountable.
Oh this is the whole idea. No accountability and not responsible for
anything, and to be paid a lot of money for it. Reminds me of someone I
used to work with. The guy gave me the creeps. He sued his house builder,
his wife sued the school district, he is now on indefinite disability. I
couldn't stand being around what a considered to be the personification of
a leach. I never wanted him riding in my car!!!
> I don't remember seeing cigarette manufacturers sitting on people's
chests
> and forcing them to smoke...
Except they misled (mislead) customers claiming there is nothing unsafe
about their product. AFAIK, kit plane manufactures make no such claims.
Kurt
Swartout
Orleans suing gun manufacturers...
dion.m...@pobox.com
<8A2F1531A969E492.496063FC...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, "Mike English" <engl...@airmail.net> wrote: ... We need to elect judges
with gonads of steel to look
> these cases in the eye and give a resounding "NO".
>
...
I don't generally get involved in these kinds of discussions, it just tends to
get my blood pressure up, but you're forgetting something. Although most other
politicians tend to be lawyers, to be a judge you must be a lawyer. Fat chance
of getting the kind of response you want from them, no matter who you elect.
Having said that, I truly believe that there are two kinds of lawyers, those
who think it's a great way to get lots of money, and those who want to help
people. I've met damn few of the latter. I hope to meet another at
Pinckneyville.
Dion
Donald DiPaula
!In article
!<8A2F1531A969E492.496063FC...@library-proxy.airnews.net
!>, "Mike English" <engl...@airmail.net> wrote: ... We need to elect judges
!with gonads of steel to look
!
!> these cases in the eye and give a resounding "NO".
!>
!...
!
!I don't generally get involved in these kinds of discussions, it just tends to
!get my blood pressure up, but you're forgetting something. Although most other
!politicians tend to be lawyers, to be a judge you must be a lawyer. Fat chance
!of getting the kind of response you want from them, no matter who you elect.
!
!Having said that, I truly believe that there are two kinds of lawyers, those
!who think it's a great way to get lots of money, and those who want to help
!people. I've met damn few of the latter. I hope to meet another at
!Pinckneyville.
i have personally known exactly three practicing lawyers in my life.
one was while i was in the air force. i got legal advice for free. she
got paid standard O-3 scale, much less than she would have earned as a
civilian.
one was my personal injury lawyer when i got rear-ended and had a broken
foot while riding my motorcycle home. he happened to be a friend of the
family (his wife works with my father), and he voluntarily reduced his
cut at settlement in order to have my share rounded up, by a few thousand
dollars.
one is a friend who happens to work in airport and FAA matters, having
picked her field because her father is an avid pilot. she said when her
boss retires, she'll retire too because she doesn't want to work for
anyone else.
there are good peole and bad people in every walk of life; but i have
yet to meet the bad lawyers the stereotypes lead us to expect.
now my sister is in law school, too, and i plan to apply myself to go
next fall. i'm not worried about people thinking badly of me; those who
know me, know what kind of person i am, and those who don't, i'd be happy
to meet. changing the world's opinion one person at a time...
!Dion
!
!-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
!http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
-D-
Richard Lamb
round nice guy. Here in Texas, we'll probably have to elect some
contry and western singer....
Nigel Field wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:12:55 GMT, Richard Lamb <lam...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, we can wish, at least.
> >
> >They have air conditioning and Television (preferably CABLE!)
> >
> >They have WWW wrestling, and Jerry Springer - to keep them
> >intelectually occupied.
> >
> >But those "voters" don't have a clue that anything is wrong.
> >
> >Besides, I think most of them look at a law suit as some kind
> >of lottery. Some day it will be his/her turn and they can "win"
> >a million dollars - without even buying a ticket.
> >
> >Well, we can wish, at least.
> >
> >Richard Lamb
> >
>
> Good point. But didn't the voters recently elect a WWW star, a Mr.
> Ventura I believe, as a state governor? The lawyers now work for him.
> Perhaps this is the begining.
>
> Nigel Field
Rich Ahrens
> Minnesota elected Jessie Ventura - WWW, VietNam Vet, and general all
> round nice guy.
I know plenty of people who had to work with him as mayor who would take
exception to the last point. And he's certainly coming across as an
egocentric jerk these days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|r...@visi.com |-----------------------------------------------|
|"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald James Wanttaja
Reinerh <rei...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I'm still waiting for a lawyer
>>representing a drowning victim to sue Mother Nature for providing
>>insufficient oxygen content in water.
>
>wont happen.
>nature has no deep pockets.
Then call it "an act of God" and sue the Vatican... :-)
Ron "Sam Gunn lives!" Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
Bill Lattimer
>First, Denver could not have added fuel to the airplane because of
>federal weight limitations, and to fly with any more fuel would have
>been illegal, Wimsatt said.
>
heck does this change his responsibility? If I get into an aircraft
that can't hold me and the fuel required (plus reserve) for the
flight, that's a decision I as PIC make.
>"Frankly it's such a basic mistake (by the NTSB), I don't see how
>they could have missed it, but they did. Big time.''
>
"Frankly, non-experienced aviation lawyers should keep their mouth
shut. Big time." :)
>Second, Wimsatt said the NTSB's report incorrectly theorized that
>Denver caused the plane to roll while trying to reach the fuel
>selector valve. Instead, he said, Denver probably lost control of the
>plane because it became unbalanced after losing power.
>
Unbalanced after losing power...hmmm. Again, this guy has obviously
never flown anything.
> The day of the crash, Denver and a maintenance technician talked
>about the handle's inaccessibility.
>
So again, he MADE A CHOICE to fly an aircraft that he considered
unsafe.
>But Wimsatt said he was glad the NTSB report highlighted the fuel
>valve. [SNIP]
>
Clearly, since he intends to make this completely the responsibility
of the builder.
>Denver's survivors have filed a lawsuit in
>a California court against the valve manufacturer, Imperial Valve
>Co., and its supplier, Aircraft Spruce and Specialty Co.
>
Poor little valve. :)
This whole concept just facinates me. I'm still waiting for a lawyer
representing a drowning victim to sue Mother Nature for providing
insufficient oxygen content in water.
<steps up on soapbox>
Peoples' basic inability to take responsibility for their own actions
continues to surprise, no, shock me. I forgot to turn off the stove,
house burnt down, sue stove mfgr. I forgot to put gas in the
airplane, crashed, sue aircraft mfgr. Basic human nature, I guess,
but it still bugs the hell out of me.
<steps down from soapbox>
Reinerh
>representing a drowning victim to sue Mother Nature for providing
>insufficient oxygen content in water.
>
>
wont happen.
nature has no deep pockets.
reiner
Henry Bibb
being sued. Ought to be some comfort to those who would sell homebuilts,
even to people whose survivors can afford such legal "assisstance"
following an accident...
Henry Bibb
Reinerh
thats a good one.
my belly aches now.
reiner
Mark Hickey
>In article <19990127195239...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,
> vet...@aol.com (Vet Trek) wrote:
>> But Bill Wimsatt, a Los Angeles lawyer who represents Denver's
>> mother and the singer's three children, said the NTSB report is
>> flawed. The report missed two vital issues, Wimsatt said.
>>
>> First, Denver could not have added fuel to the airplane because of
>> federal weight limitations, and to fly with any more fuel would have
>> been illegal, Wimsatt said.
>
>A Long-EZE cannot fly with one person and full fuel!?!?!? Is this due to
>weight and balance concerns? Or is the lawyer speading FUD (fear,
>uncertainty and doubt)?
>
>> "Frankly it's such a basic mistake (by the NTSB), I don't see how
>> they could have missed it, but they did. Big time.''
>
>Incredible that they could have missed that. Just incredible. How
>could basic facts that are apparent to any idiot slip by the experts?
>Perhaps we need facts that aren't apparent to idiots.
>
>> Second, Wimsatt said the NTSB's report incorrectly theorized that
>> Denver caused the plane to roll while trying to reach the fuel
>> selector valve. Instead, he said, Denver probably lost control of the
>> plane because it became unbalanced after losing power.
>
>"Unbalanced after losing power"? I wasn't aware that the engine had a
>different weight while running versus non-running. In a tractor airplane you
>could argue that the prop-wash changes the aerodynamics slightly, but that
>isn't possible in a Long-Eze.
Methinks someone needs to supply a videotape of a Long-EZE taking off
from the same airport with a pilot of JD's weight WITH full fuel, and
include footage from inside the craft during an engine shutdown (if it
was being flown hands-off it would be even more effective). Perhaps
sending one to JD's family would help dispell the stupidity that's
being spoonfed to them by someone (the lawyer in question?). Even if
not, it could still be used to pretty much blow the arguments out of
the water. Even if the jury doesn't understand anything about
airplanes, SEEING one do what the lawyer says it won't would be
compelling.
Mark Hickey
tom c
Ronald James Wanttaja wrote in message <78tqpo$df4$1...@halcyon.com>...
>
appointed Power of Attorney and executor of estate.
Tom Cooper
Bob U.
>>Reinerh <rei...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>I'm still waiting for a lawyer
>>>>representing a drowning victim to sue Mother Nature for providing
>>>>insufficient oxygen content in water.
>>>
>>>wont happen.
>>>nature has no deep pockets.
>>
>>Then call it "an act of God" and sue the Vatican... :-)
>>
>>Ron "Sam Gunn lives!" Wanttaja
>I was thinking more along the lines of Greenpeace, Mother Nature's self
>appointed Power of Attorney and executor of estate.
>Tom Cooper
>
Yeah,
And it's this kind of THINKING and behavior that keeps you in hot
water with Ms. Geeter's too!
Bob U.
Lenspencer
>Orleans suing gun manufacturers...
Don't forget Miami.....
Lenspencer
>Question: Is it possible/feasible for the defendants to countersue for legal
>costs? This case is so ridiculous, it would seem an easy countersuit to win.
>But is it allowed? Is there any way to get the plaintiff to pay all legal
>fees incurred? Please tell me it is possible. Please.
In a few states, if the plaintiff loses, they have to pay the defendant's legal
costs. Should be a federal law.
just my 2ยข ...
brian whatcott
>
>Well, guys, the good news, if there is any, is the *builder* isn't
>Henry Bibb
>
This is merely a circumstantial detail.
Who would have been sued if the builder had been
say, a physician making average pay?
The folks responsible for this disgraceful situation are called you,
and you and me. Make the path to juridical jackpot so easy
( by allowing lawyers to operate on commission and lose only
the sweat of their brow if they lose the case for instance) and this
will continue to happen over and over and over....
Brian Whatcott Altus OK
Robert Day
builder be sued)
If any person has any responsibility other than JD, it *might* be the
builder for where he mounted the valve. But he's not getting sued. Why? NO
DEEP POCKETS. This in itself should serve to demonstrate the motives of the
council for the plaintiff.
Henry Bibb wrote in message ...
>Well, guys, the good news, if there is any, is the *builder* isn't
Robert Day
Donald DiPaula wrote in message <78sqkc$f...@dedaana.otd.com>...
Robert Day
there? :)
I'm right there with you on this one.
Rob Day
Bill Lattimer wrote in message <78tosd$4n3$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
>
>>First, Denver could not have added fuel to the airplane because of
>>federal weight limitations, and to fly with any more fuel would have
>>been illegal, Wimsatt said.
>>
>Ok, so he couldn't add more fuel without going over gross. How the
>heck does this change his responsibility? If I get into an aircraft
>that can't hold me and the fuel required (plus reserve) for the
>flight, that's a decision I as PIC make.
>
>>"Frankly it's such a basic mistake (by the NTSB), I don't see how
>>they could have missed it, but they did. Big time.''
>>
>"Frankly, non-experienced aviation lawyers should keep their mouth
>shut. Big time." :)
>
>>Second, Wimsatt said the NTSB's report incorrectly theorized that
>>Denver caused the plane to roll while trying to reach the fuel
>>selector valve. Instead, he said, Denver probably lost control of the
>>plane because it became unbalanced after losing power.
>>
>Unbalanced after losing power...hmmm. Again, this guy has obviously
>never flown anything.
>
>> The day of the crash, Denver and a maintenance technician talked
>>about the handle's inaccessibility.
>>
>So again, he MADE A CHOICE to fly an aircraft that he considered
>unsafe.
>
>>But Wimsatt said he was glad the NTSB report highlighted the fuel
>>valve. [SNIP]
>>
>Clearly, since he intends to make this completely the responsibility
>of the builder.
>
>
>
>>Denver's survivors have filed a lawsuit in
>>a California court against the valve manufacturer, Imperial Valve
>>Co., and its supplier, Aircraft Spruce and Specialty Co.
>>
>Poor little valve. :)
>
>This whole concept just facinates me. I'm still waiting for a lawyer
>representing a drowning victim to sue Mother Nature for providing
>insufficient oxygen content in water.
>
Gandalf
personally appear on the front step of their prospective clients. No
phone tag permitted. Part two of the law would rule it a justifiable
homicide if the prospective client simply capped the bastard.
--
Alan Davenport gandalf at goldcom dot com
===============================================
You know they invented wheelbarrows to teach
FAA inspectors to walk on their hind legs.
===============================================
Peter S. Lert wrote:
> Lenspencer wrote:
>
> >
> > In a few states, if the plaintiff loses, they have to pay the defendant's legal
> > costs. Should be a federal law.
> >
> > just my 2ยข ...
>
> Older SciFi fans might remember a story--sorry, author
> forgotten--called "Gladiator at Law." Opposing counsels engaged in
> physical combat and the one who didn't prevail was put to death. If I
> remember correctly, in some cases the client was, too.
>
> It would sure reduce frivolous lawsuits, wouldn't it? We can dream...
Boatfly
In article <36b25e73...@news.nuri.net>, mhi...@cynetfl.com (Mark Hickey)
writes:
>
>Methinks someone needs to supply a videotape of a Long-EZE taking off
>from the same airport with a pilot of JD's weight WITH full fuel, and
>include footage from inside the craft during an engine shutdown (if it
>was being flown hands-off it would be even more effective). Perhaps
>sending one to JD's family would help dispell the stupidity that's
>being spoonfed to them by someone (the lawyer in question?). Even if
>not, it could still be used to pretty much blow the arguments out of
>the water. Even if the jury doesn't understand anything about
>airplanes, SEEING one do what the lawyer says it won't would be
>compelling.
>
>
I'm having a hard time thinking that J.D.'s mom hired a dork of this
magnitude.Maybe this is an attempt to soften up the jury pool long before any
trial.
Doug Johnson
>>Hello to all lawyers out there-
>>Question: Is it possible/feasible for the defendants to countersue for legal
>>costs? This case is so ridiculous, it would seem an easy countersuit to win.
>>But is it allowed? Is there any way to get the plaintiff to pay all legal
>>fees incurred? Please tell me it is possible. Please.
>
>In a few states, if the plaintiff loses, they have to pay the defendant's legal
>costs. Should be a federal law.
>
>just my 2ยข ...
>
In Florida, if the suit is truly frivolous in the eyes of the
judge who hears it <sometimes dependent on which side of the bed upon
which he got up, or how crowded is his docket> there is statutory
provision for him to award the defendant attorneys' fees.
This is not legal advice. If it were legal advice, it would
be accompanied by an invoice.
Doug Johnson
Http://www.skyray.com
Accident Investigator Extraordinary
Jerry Springer
Robert Day wrote:
>
> So true. But here's some odd logic: (understand that I am NOT suggesting the
> builder be sued)
> If any person has any responsibility other than JD, it *might* be the
> builder for where he mounted the valve. But he's not getting sued. Why? NO
> DEEP POCKETS. This in itself should serve to demonstrate the motives of the
> council for the plaintiff.
>
I don't care if the fuel valve was on the wing tip JD know where is was
and that it did not work properly, so he is still totally responsible
for flying the plane with a know defect period. He was a experienced
pilot so he should have know better and also be aware of how much fuel
was aboard. This kind of nonsense from asshole lawyers pisses me off.
> Henry Bibb wrote in message ...
> >Well, guys, the good news, if there is any, is the *builder* isn't
> >being sued. Ought to be some comfort to those who would sell homebuilts,
> >even to people whose survivors can afford such legal "assisstance"
> >following an accident...
> >
> >Henry Bibb
> >
--
Jerry Springer|RV-6 First Flight 1989|Hillsboro, OR
jsf...@ix.netcom.com
Bill Lattimer
> I'm having a hard time thinking that J.D.'s mom hired a dork of this
>magnitude.Maybe this is an attempt to soften up the jury pool long before any
>trial.
>
I don't think the lawyer is dumb, he's just not a pilot. He's using a
"common sense" approach to the problem without the knowledge to
evaluate the practicality of it.
Lastly, he's got to find some kind of handle to hang the suite on...
Reinerh
>on the jury make decisions based upon emotion and with no respect for the
>facts and the law.
and they often get selected to make sure they are the dumbest they possibly can
find.
a friend who has a brain and runs a very succesful business was just thrown out
of jury duty for exactly that reason.
reiner
Ronald James Wanttaja
I was selected for jury duty about six years ago. I went in expecting
to *not* get selected for any particular case because the word was that
local defense attorneys always rejected engineers. Basically, we were
supposedly stereotyped as hard-headed "hang-em-high" conservatives.
Much to my surprise, I not only got selected, but darn near got named
foreman. The eventual result was right out of "Twelve Angry Men"... ten
for conviction, two for acquital, and a whole lot of teeth-gnashing.
Can't complain, though, I got out of three days' work. AND made a big
$10/day and bus tokens! :-)
Ron Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
Bill Robie
Reinerh <rei...@aol.com> wrote:
>>The problem with the US system is the people who get
>>on the jury make decisions based upon emotion and with no respect for the
>>facts and the law.
>
>and they often get selected to make sure they are the dumbest they possibly can
>find.
>
>a friend who has a brain and runs a very succesful business was just thrown out
>of jury duty for exactly that reason.
I've heard it said that being seen reading something like a philosophy
textbook, while waiting for jury selection to start, is a pretty sure
way of being dismissed early that day. I'd be interested to hear from
Tony if there is any merit to this.
Tim Ward
Bill Robie wrote in message <790nkh$h8...@umbc7.umbc.edu>...
>I've heard it said that being seen reading something like a philosophy
>textbook, while waiting for jury selection to start, is a pretty sure
>way of being dismissed early that day. I'd be interested to hear from
>Tony if there is any merit to this.
I've met philosophy majors. Why would this make someone think you were
smart?
Peter S. Lert
>
> In a few states, if the plaintiff loses, they have to pay the defendant's legal
> costs. Should be a federal law.
>
> just my 2ยข ...
Richard Lamb
Which qualifies him as DUMB!
Badwater Bill
Me too. These assholes just want to make more money at $200 an hour
out of the tax payers. Scum sucking vultures. I have more respect
for a black syphilytic gutter-whore than I do for a government-fund
sucking attorney.
I hope that bastard rots in hell.
BWB
Reinerh
>to *not* get selected for any particular case because the word was that
>local defense attorneys always rejected engineers. Basically, we were
>supposedly stereotyped as hard-headed "hang-em-high" conservatives.
>
>Much to my surprise, I not only got selected, but darn near got named
>foreman. The eventual result was right out of "Twelve Angry Men"... ten
>for conviction, two for acquital, and a whole lot of teeth-gnashing.
thats in seattle where there are still some ethics left. and i think its
different on a case to case basis.
but its a different ballgame on the east coast and southern california.
reiner
Janet & Doug Crossman-Bosworth
Reinerh wrote in message <19990128005142...@ng33.aol.com>...
>>This piece of shit attorney is only
>>trying to get some settlement money, the damn jerk.
>
>remember the jessica deal.
>there it was money as well.
>the attorney has nothing to loose.
>just send a few letters back and forth and collect a few cool millions.
>
> reiner
And the insurance company ends up paying, and
charging it back to us in premiums...
--
Doug - Kingfisher plans are here...Garage is getting better...
but baby on way slows progress.
David Munday
>I was selected for jury duty about six years ago. I went in expecting
>to *not* get selected for any particular case because the word was that
>local defense attorneys always rejected engineers. Basically, we were
>supposedly stereotyped as hard-headed "hang-em-high" conservatives.
>
>Much to my surprise, I not only got selected, but darn near got named
>foreman. The eventual result was right out of "Twelve Angry Men"... ten
>for conviction, two for acquital, and a whole lot of teeth-gnashing.
>
>Can't complain, though, I got out of three days' work. AND made a big
>$10/day and bus tokens! :-)
And more importantly, you did your part to make sure our justice
system represents the people, not some separate government interest.
The process is supposed to be participatory, and you participated.
Trial by Jury was one of the rights most vehemently sought by those
insisting on a Bill of Rights back in 1787-89. See for example:
Robert Allen Rutland's The Birth of the Bill of Rights, Chapel Hill,
1955. It is still the standard work.
--
David Munday - mund...@muohio.noise.edu
My email address is not noisy.
Webpage: http://www.nku.edu/~munday
PP-ASEL - Tandem Flybaby Builder - EAA-284 (Waynesville, OH)
"Adopt, Adapt, and Improve" -- Motto of the Round Table
Richard Williams
<snip all the old stuff>
I have personally hired 7 lawyers
Each were practicing 'family law' and were hired to handle my divorce and its'
aftermath.
The first, hired to handle the divorce, failed to file the necessary papers, and
failed to notify me of a separate maintenance hearing.
The second thru seventh were for fighting the resulting $2400/month separate
maintenance fee.
Typically, those lawyers would gobble up $4,000 to $10,000 a month.
And in the end, I still had to pay that separate maintenance fee, even though there
were no children,
the wife was gainfully employed, and the marriage was less than 2 years in length.
You may be sure that I have a VERY LOW opinion of lawyers.
R. (Bitterly divorced) Williams
Wingman150
Naw, don't have a bad opinion of Lawyers. Tony is one of the greatest guys on
this earth! Nice, smart, and a mean bestard! You can't get those qualities in
ALL lawyers you know! :o) I feel the same way though...I hate lawyers...Except
Tony.
Carl A. Johansson
Mr. Phillips,
we as a seperate genus and several species must object to your
characterization of liarers oops I mean Lawyers as "Scum sucking
Vultures". You know tht lawyers do not approach us in intelligence and
particularly in Moralistic values. If you must compare them to other
more legitamate members of the animal world, you need to know that their
nearest taxonomic relative is the Banana Slug. Please use this
information in your future diatribes!! Thank you
you freaking as*h*le!!!
Seymore the Turkey Vulture!@!!!!
Ronald James Wanttaja
Those who got to Pinkneyville should ask Tony about some of his other
cases. He handles corporate law to hold body and soul together, but he
also takes on a lot of "little guy" cases.
HERD J D
: >You may be sure that I have a VERY LOW opinion of lawyers.
:
: Naw, don't have a bad opinion of Lawyers. Tony is one of the greatest guys on
: this earth! Nice, smart, and a mean bestard! You can't get those qualities in
: ALL lawyers you know! :o) I feel the same way though...I hate lawyers...Except
:
:
:
I read somewhere that Lawyers aren't bad, its just that 99% of them give
the rest a bad name!
--
Cheers,
/----------------------------------\
| Jon Herd | |~~\__/~~~\__ |
| Graduate School of Business |___________\___ ===== )-+
| University of Newcastle | ~~~| /~\~ |
| New South Wales, AUSTRALIA | o o
| mg...@u2.newcastle.edu.au |
\----------------------------------/
http://u2.newcastle.edu.au/~mgjdh
John Ammeter
World, I must take exception to maligning the innocent and lovely
slug.
Since we cannot grow bananas locally slugs are our substitute for the
old 'slip on a banana' joke. The only problem we have is all the
geese that find the local slug a delicacy.
I plan to serve Smoked Seattle Slug at the Pink Knee Ville West BBQ
this summer. Mayhap I could bring a few of our local residents to
Pink Knee in May. I'm sure Pastor Dave and El Pollo Loco can find a
suitable sauce.
Jon Ampmeter
Reinerh
>and
>failed to notify me of a separate maintenance hearing.
>The second thru seventh were for fighting the resulting $2400/month separate
>maintenance fee.
>
>Typically, those lawyers would gobble up $4,000 to $10,000 a month.
>And in the end, I still had to pay that separate maintenance fee, even though
>there
>were no children,
>the wife was gainfully employed, and the marriage was less than 2 years in
>length.
>
same experience here.
they screw up you just pay more. they screw up again you just shell out more
money.
remember they practice law.
no gurantees whatsoever.
reiner
Donald DiPaula
!Well, guys, the good news, if there is any, is the *builder* isn't
!being sued. Ought to be some comfort to those who would sell homebuilts,
!even to people whose survivors can afford such legal "assisstance"
!following an accident...
!
!Henry Bibb
this is just my opinion, but it seems that the builder, who decided to
not follow the plans and instead put the fuel selector valve in a position
that cannot be reached in normal flight by the pilot while flying the
aircraft, is responsible for the single largest contributing factor of
this accident.
-D-
Richard Lamb
JD showed very poor judgment in taking
off with so little fuel avaliable.
Vet Trek
>off with so little fuel avaliable.
His unfamiliarity with the fuel gauges is apparently what caused this to
happen. He was probably under the impression that 1/4 fuel visible in the
gauge meant 1/4 of a tank. The other side was at 1/2. This would have given him
6 1/2 gallons on one side and 13 on the other. More than enough for what he
wanted to do. As it turned out, he had 3 gallons on one side and 6 on the
other...
Markings on the fuel gauges would have been very beneficial in this
scenerio.
And even given the 1/4 and 1/2 tank scenerio, he should have used good
judgement and filled up.
One lesson so far,
Val
I heard a singer whose songs were pure
About humans, our loves and our greeds
And this man when he sang even angry words
Had a soul that was deeply at peace
- Ellen Stapenhorst
Hephaestus
were lawyers related to any living thing?
tim
Carl A. Johansson <ca...@csufresno.edu> wrote in article
<36B4EC75...@csufresno.edu>...
highflyer
>
> Unfair to Banana Slugs! Unfair! Unfair! Not true either! Since when
> were lawyers related to any living thing?
>
> tim
>
Well, they have been compared to some varieties of slime moulds,
and also to the common used car salesman genus often found in
locations in depressed areas behind signs mentioning "financing
available to anyone" and "no money down."
HF
n74...@my-dejanews.com
bil...@NOSPAM.warbird.org wrote:
> I don't think the lawyer is dumb, he's just not a pilot. He's using a
> "common sense" approach to the problem without the knowledge to
> evaluate the practicality of it.
The problem with this evaluation, Bill, is that the aircraft's
design maximum gross weight, current empty weight, and estimated
weight at the start of the accident flight are all given IN THE
NTSB REPORT ITSELF.
The design max gross weight is 1425.
wt at start of accident flight 1310
-------------
115 lbs
So 19 lbs of fuel could have been added. The airplane was at or near
the rearward CG limit, but if adding fuel puts the CG rearward I don't
see how the plane could have been flown with two pilots and more fuel,
as in the checkout flight described in the NTSB report.
Now the lawyer might not be a pilot, but anyone can subtract 1310
from 1425 and conclude that *some* weight (ie fuel) could probably
have been added. Also, anyone can read the report and conclude:
"hey, he flew the plane with another guy in back and more fuel,
so it must have been possible to carry more load than he was"
So it seems to me that the information necessary to evaluate the
practicality of the lawyer's suggestion is contained, RIGHT IN THE
BODY OF THE NTSB REPORT HE CRITIQUES AS FLAWED.
I don't see any "common sense" in this approach, and I nominate the
lawsuit and the Denver Post article for my "Iron Spike Award for
Unintentional Irony, 1999".
Regards,
Snowbird
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
J Kahn
highflyer <high...@alt.net> wrote in article <36B87C...@alt.net>...
People can't just blame lawyers HF. I went to a seminar given by US
legal types, that represent Bombardier in the US, to give employees
a primmer on US tort (civil) law, since we sell so many airplanes to
Comair and such.
The reason for the law suit craziness seems to be related to
the many unique features of US tort law that are not found
anywhere else:
Joint and several liability - everybody involved is equally responsible
even
though the real blame may be one party. Which is why they go after the
"deep pocket".
Strict liability - Taking all prudent precautions to make sure a product
is sound is not a defense. If you made it, and it broke, you are
responsible,
period. We were told that this was a concept that only took hold in the
courts since the 60s.
Punitive Damages - The actual damages portion of an award is usually
fairly small. It's the punitive damages that are simply meant to
be a deterrent to evil doer manufacturers make the awards so insanely
high.
Jury civil trials - Rare in Can/Brit/Aus... it's all selling on emotion,
especially
when combined with the concept of punitive damages.
Contingency fees - Encouraging going for max punitive damages. We have
contingency fees in Can. but without those other aspects they don't
have the same effect.
It's all part of the way the system is set up. I'm not saying other
countries have a better legal system or anything. That's just the facts
as they were explained to me
On the bright side, I was reading that there were an increasing number
of US civil cases where judges were finally starting to put a stop to
the kind of evidence that could be brought in, and to apply a
little common sense to things.
JohnK
Bombardier Aerospace
Regional Aircraft
brian whatcott
>....
>It's all part of the way the system is set up. I'm not saying other
>JohnK
>Bombardier Aerospace
Why WOULDN'T you say that, when it's as plain as the nose
on your face?
Brian Whatctt Altus OK
Marc J. Zeitlin
> The design max gross weight is 1425.
> wt at start of accident flight 1310
> -------------
> 115 lbs
>
> So 19 lbs of fuel could have been added.
I assume you meant 19 GALLONS here. Not only that, but it's "design
max gross weight" might be 1425 lbs. , but that doesn't mean that
that's what that particular plane was certified at - it's very
possible that it was certified at a higher gross weight, meaning that
it would have been legal to put even MORE fuel and a passenger in it.
The narrative doesn't address the ACTUAL certified gross weight of the
plane in question.
--
Marc J. Zeitlin email: marc_z...@bose.com
Noise Reduction Technology Group phone: 508-766-4226
Bose Corporation fax: 508-879-3049
The Mountain web: http://www.bose.com
Framingham, MA 01701-9168
Bill Lattimer
>> I don't think the lawyer is dumb, he's just not a pilot. He's using a
>> "common sense" approach to the problem without the knowledge to
>> evaluate the practicality of it.
>
>The problem with this evaluation, Bill, is that the aircraft's
>design maximum gross weight, current empty weight, and estimated
>weight at the start of the accident flight are all given IN THE
>NTSB REPORT ITSELF.
>
You assume that the lawyer is familiar with the terms and concepts
regarding aircraft weights. Whereas you and I understand that we need
to take less fuel, less stuff or not go, the lawyer may just see that
"gosh, he COULDN'T have put any more fuel in - so it wasn't his
fault!" He's probably also not familiar with the responsibilities
assigned to the PIC by the FARs.
The real key is that you have to have something that sounds plausible
to the judge to get started, and he's done that.
It's unfortunate that the Denver family didn't contact one of the
lawyers working with Vans and other companies on their accidents -
they might have been told the realities of the situation.
>The design max gross weight is 1425.
> wt at start of accident flight 1310
> -------------
> 115 lbs
>
snowb...@my-dejanews.com
bil...@NOSPAM.warbird.org wrote:
> You assume that the lawyer is familiar with the terms and concepts
> regarding aircraft weights. Whereas you and I understand that we need
> to take less fuel, less stuff or not go, the lawyer may just see that
> "gosh, he COULDN'T have put any more fuel in - so it wasn't his
> fault!"
I don't buy this, Bill. If nothing else, it's right in the NTSB report
that Denver and his checkout pilot had been flying the plane together,
earlier in the day, with more fuel. I don't think you need to be an
aviator or a rocket scientist to say "gee, if they could fly the plane
with two people and more fuel in the morning, couldn't Denver fly with
just himself and more fuel in the afternoon?"
I don't think it requires an aviation background, just moderate intelligence
and the ability to read for content. Similarly, there's nothing uniquely
aviation to the concept of "max gross weight" and "weight at the time of
the accident". "Max gross weight" is a term generally used in transportation
as well as in highway and bridge design. And as we say where I come from
"If You Don't Know Ask".
So no, I don't think I'm assuming Mr. Lawyer is familiar with any terms
or concepts unique to aviation.
What I DO think is that people who critique an expert's work as flawed
(and who wish to involve another in legal hassles) should be able to
read for content, and to take reasonable care to discover the meaning
of terms they don't understand.
How can one claim someone's work is flawed, if one doesn't understand it?
It's like a grotesque parody of the "aviation attitude check" where
someone responds "I don't know what that place is down there but it sure
looks like it sucks!"
Bill Lattimer
>In article <79dh9o$2gs$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>,
> bil...@NOSPAM.warbird.org wrote:
>
>> You assume that the lawyer is familiar with the terms and concepts
>> regarding aircraft weights. Whereas you and I understand that we need
>> to take less fuel, less stuff or not go, the lawyer may just see that
>> "gosh, he COULDN'T have put any more fuel in - so it wasn't his
>> fault!"
>
>I don't buy this, Bill. If nothing else, it's right in the NTSB report
>that Denver and his checkout pilot had been flying the plane together,
>earlier in the day, with more fuel. I don't think you need to be an
>aviator or a rocket scientist to say "gee, if they could fly the plane
>with two people and more fuel in the morning, couldn't Denver fly with
>just himself and more fuel in the afternoon?"
>
I think you read this far in the post and stopped. First, I would
encourage you to try this with a friend with no aviation background
and see what kind of answers you get. I stand by the observation
(verified experimentally :) that the responsibilities of a PIC and the
trade-off on aircraft weights are not common knowledge or really
common sense. Admit it - first time you (or I) worked the W&B for our
152s or Tomahawks with us, the instructor and full fuel it sure came
as a surprise...
Second, my point was that you only need to find something plausable to
the judge.
Not trying to start a flame war, and the whole discussion's moot
really - since the suit has been filed and the non-aviation press is
eating it up.
William Gleason
Richard Capp wrote:
>
> Bryan Martin wrote:
> >
> > The LAWYER should be paying all legal costs in cases like this, not the
> > plaintif. If these silly-assed nusiance lawsuits start costing them actual
> > cash money they might reconsider filing the suits in the first place.
> Snip:)
Well Richard, here is my point of view good or bad. The only problem
with both systems is responsibility, plain and simple. We are a buck
passing society period! There use to be laws that stated that if you
loose, you pay, however the lawyers fixed that some time ago in their
favor. The Jury is fixed and always will be. Both lawyers pick people
that have a brain the size of a pea and as uninformed as possible so
that they can not draw on any gray matter to conclude a fair results.
They want a jury that will believe most anything they are told and then
it is actor time. The best actor wins! The lawyer acts like Perry
Mason and pulls on whatever string the juror has to convince them in
their favor. This is what is killing Aviation. Lets say that I am an
instructor, right? I teach you to fly like an ace pilot. One day you
have your head anywhere but in the airplane and kill your self with a
stupid maneuver that there is no way that I would approve. You wife
files a law suit against me and the FAA takes my ticket as I was the
last instructor that you had. They win and I loose!!! Where is the
justice? The word again responsibility. Most governments are about the
same here. They create laws and make judgments as though we will never
be a responsible adult. If I choose to fly with all the dangers that go
along with it, then if I kill myself by my own error in piloting, it
should be MY PROBLEM and responsibility, however the sharks fly over
head and see dollar signs, they sue everyone in sight. Remember that
$107,000,000 law suit against Teledyne? A very good example. The
pilots, the man and wife, misdirected their airplane, landed in a tree
and the motor company gets sued. The j3-cub is a great little plane,
however they want to sue toady's owners for what they did not know 50
years ago. What can we do to stop this stuff? I told my wife if I get
killed in my CGS Hawk and she sues CGS aviation that I will come back to
life with a vengeance. Apparently there are no adults alive today,
responsible ones anyway. If so, I should be able or anyone should be
able to sign a waver of responsibility and stop some law suites. If I
get burnt on a match maybe I can sue the match company, right?
Charles K. Scott
William Gleason <gle...@image.kodak.com> writes:
> What can we do to stop this stuff? I told my wife if I get
> killed in my CGS Hawk and she sues CGS aviation that I will come back to
> life with a vengeance.
Bad move. If your wife truly loves you this sounds like something
she'd jump at.
Hey, it's Friday. :-)
Corky Scott
Mark Hickey
>I told my wife if I get
>killed in my CGS Hawk and she sues CGS aviation that I will come back to
>life with a vengeance.
Errr, before or after she collects?
Mark Hickey
jec...@my-dejanews.com
rei...@aol.com (Reinerh) wrote:
> >I'm still waiting for a lawyer
> >representing a drowning victim to sue Mother Nature for providing
> >insufficient oxygen content in water.
> >
> >
>
> wont happen.
> nature has no deep pockets.
>
> reiner
Besides, water is 33% oxygen whereas air in only 20%, ergo Mother Nature
should win. The argument would have to be the faulty design of the human
body due to its inability to use the oxygen of media in which the drowing
victem inavertently (or intentionally) found themselves..... Now if only the
lawyer can find someone remotely associated with MN that is also associated
with someone with deep pockets, -Let The Games Begin-...
Also, it is quite unfair to lump MOST lawers into this catagory. Tort lawers
make up a minority of the total lawers. If all the ills of our legal system
is dumped on tort lawers, there will be none left for the other
specialities...
Jim
Earth Wolf
<pete...@montrose.net> wrote:
>Lenspencer wrote:
>
>>
>> In a few states, if the plaintiff loses, they have to pay the defendant's legal
>> costs. Should be a federal law.
>>
>> just my 2ยข ...
>
>
> Older SciFi fans might remember a story--sorry, author
>forgotten--called "Gladiator at Law." Opposing counsels engaged in
>physical combat and the one who didn't prevail was put to death. If I
>remember correctly, in some cases the client was, too.
>
> It would sure reduce frivolous lawsuits, wouldn't it? We can dream...
Be careful what you wish for. In Spain, during the days of the
Inquisition, a lawyer who defended a heretic could himself be charged
with heresy. In theory, this meant the courts had to prove he *knew*
his client was a heretic; in practice, it meant they tortured you
until you confessed. Lots of innocent people went to their deaths
because no lawyer in his right mind would take the case.
The problem is not with the lawyers; there are good lawyers and there
are skunks. Simple survival of the fittest means that greedy bastards
who are looking to get rich quick will become "ambulance chasers", but
not all lawyers are ambulance chasers; some have devoted years of
their lives, and thousands (occasionally millions) of dollars to
proving the innocence of a wrongly convicted client.
The real problem is with a court system that tolerates juries making
nonsensical awards based purely on sympathy, and with judges that are
too willing to pass the buck. As long as juries get to play Santa
Claus with somebody else's money, the problem will continue.
aardwolfe
David Bettencout
I have followed this thread for a while. Under clear law, there is not
a snowball's chance in hell that this suit will succeed, and, if filed
in a federal court or those of many states (such as Hawaii), the
plaintiff's counsel would be sanctioned. I believe that most of our
District of Hawaii judges or State of Hawaii judges would actually
impose the sanctions IF they understood flying, homebuilding, and the
issues involved in the case.
I don't know where this case was filed, but I suspect it will be
dismissed on a motion for summary judgment, ie., no material contested
facts. Facts are only material if they related to some "Proximate Cause"
for the accident. No facts can be alleged by the plaintiffs against
these manufacturers which could possibly show that the fuel valve itself
malfunctioned, had a latent defect, or was improperly designed or
labeled.
I know that this may seem hard to believe now, but back in the late
forties and early fifties, it was hard to win cases against airlines,
who were then allowed to defend thier flights into impossible IMC
weather as an intervening "Act of God" defense.Liability is often
properly imposed by a jury where conduct warrants.
Many wings fell of Bonanza's after tail flutter, Cessna 177's used to
flat spin, Beech 18 spars did crack and fail. many tails fell off Cessna
404 Titan's and Cessna was forced to ground its Conquest fleet not once
but twice when the tails kept fluttering off after the first "fix"
didn't work. I once received an AD note from Continental engines
regarding about 100 of their "remanufactured" engines (I didn't have one
in my Cessna 170B) where the wrong rods had been installed. The small
end had over .100 inch play because the upper bushing was too big; it
said that if I had a reman engine with more than 100 hours SMOH, not to
worry further; they always failed prior to 100 hours.If I went down in
the Kaiwi Channel and lost my plane because some idiot didn't notice
.100 inch with of slop in all six cylinders, yes I would sue their ass.
The problem is, judges are not technically competent and choose not to
grant a summary judgment motion when they don't understand the facts. I
hope that the judge in this case knows what he's doing. When liability
should be imposed on a "manufacturer" and when they should be protected
from both liability and lawsuits is a complex question. When I spoke
about products liability at Oshkosh, most of the anti-liability,
aviation oriented audience were presented withd a scenario where their
wife and mother of two is electricuted by a new washing machine or
dryer; most said they would file suit, and would be disappointed if they
could not find a lawyer to help them.
I personally don't like or trust many of my fellow lawyers; I liked the
days back in the late sixties when I could personally know all of the
lawyers in the State of Hawaii; there were about 400 on the seven main
islands; now there is about 4000. Their is now way I can personally know
each one now, their conduct in prior cases together or their track
record for integrity.The situation is worse in larger states, which is
most of the Mainland. Any given judge cannot have that assistance of
knowing the track record for slinging bull and/or quality lawyering for
most lawyers in their courts. I down that if the Denver suit had been
filed in Hawaii, it probably wouldn't last long, and those counsel that
filed it would be forced to pay costs to the dendants. IMHO. Off the
soap box and off to the jury box. Aloha